Pages

Sunday, July 31, 2011

Key to Telangana: Article 3, Part 2

In
the previous article titled ‘Key to Telangana: Article 3’, I discussed how Article 3 of Indian
Constitution makes it clear that the Indian Parliament is the sole authority on
making a decision on a new state. The
involvement of the State Assembly is confined to only presenting ‘its views’
within a certain specified period of time.
Indian Parliament is not obligated to follow on the views of State
Assembly. If the State Assembly votes negatively
on the bill, or if the State Assembly does not express its opinion within the
specified period of time, it could still be introduced in the Parliament after
the expiry of the specified period.

Providing
this clarity on Article 3 was necessary for the on-going struggle in Telangana
because most of the Indian Cabinet ministers have been distorting the original
definition, purport and intention of Article 3 and started to play games with
Indian people saying that it is mandatory for Andhra Pradesh State Assembly to
pass the resolution before it can be taken up by the Indian Parliament.

Not
only did P Chidambaram, Home Minister of India, make the biggest blunder when
he asked State Assembly of Andhra Pradesh to pass the resolution on formation
of Telangana, other Cabinet Ministers kept repeating the lie. Veerappa Moily, Indian Minister of Law and
Justice, says:

“How
can Telangana be formed (like this). There is a procedure involved. The Bill
cannot be taken up Parliament till it is passed by the Assembly. We have to
create an atmosphere which cannot be created by confrontation. It has to be
created by trust.”

When
the Law Minister in the country starts distorting the legal system of the
country you should strongly suspect if we can still trust the current
leadership in this country to resolve this issue. The distortion was played up so much that
entire Indian media, now even the international media, started to parrot the
same lie. The lie has been repeated so
many times that it is now passed on as truth. Till now, no serious journalist
or columnist did his own research to find fault with the Cabinet Ministers’
comments on this issue.

After
I published the previous article, certain questions were raised by observers as
to why P Chidambaram referred the Telangana issue to the State Assembly to pass
the resolution when the original interpretation of Article 3 did not specify
it. A reference was cited to the
immediate precedent – that of creation of Jharkhand out of Bihar, Uttarakhand
out of Uttar Pradesh, and Chattisgarh out of Madhya Pradesh, in the year 2000
under NDA government, when the legislative houses of the respective states
passed a resolution before the bill was passed in the Indian Parliament.

Was
P Chidambaram just following the precedent set during creation of these three
states? If so, what is anything wrong
with what Home Minister did? Was he not
right in following the right procedure?

Creation of Chattisgarh

According
to the procedure prescribed in Article 3, a bill for creation of Chattisgarh
was drafted by Union Government and then sent to Madhya Pradesh where it was
unanimously approved. Both Congress and
BJP, the leading national parties, supported the resolution in the State
Assembly of Madhya Pradesh. The election
manifestos of both Congress and BJP included demand for creation of separate
Chattisgarh. The bill was then passed
in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha after which the President gave the consent,
thereby creating new state of Chattisgarh on 1st November 2000.

The
process was quite smooth because an ‘important factor leading to the creation
of Chhattisgarh was that there was clear acceptance, within Chhattisgarh and
outside that Chhattisgarh had a distinct socio-cultural regional identity that
had evolved over centuries. A consensus had evolved and emerged on the
distinctiveness of Chhattisgarh.’ The government website describes thus: ‘In a democratic polity, the people's demand
has a high degree of legitimacy and weight. Therefore the people's demand
voiced through democratic channels was heard and contributed immensely to the creation
of Chhattisgarh.’

Creation of Jharkhand

The
state of Bihar took the initiative in creation of Jharkhand when Jharkhand Area
Autonomous Council was formed in 1995 comprising 18 districts. Coming under the pressure from Jharkhand
Mukti Morcha (JMM) which supported Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) to form the
government, Bihar adopted
a resolution for creation of Jharkhand on 22 July 1997. However, a year later, Lalu Prasad Yadav of
RJD reversed his earlier position. In
the next election, RJD needed support from Congress to form the government. Congress extended the support
on the condition that Jharkhand is formed.
Lok Sabha passed the bill in the year 2000 though two key allies of NDA,
and RJD and CPI-M opposing the bill after which the state of Jharkhand was formed on 15 November 2000.

Creation
of Uttarakhand

State
of Uttar Pradesh passed a motion demanding Uttarakhand on 12 August 1991. The
Central Government under NDA drafted the bill in 1994 and through the President
of India asked the state assembly to provide its opinion on various provisions
of the bill. The State Assembly adopted
a resolution for creation of Uttarakhand on 24 August 1994 with as nearly 26
amendments, including the one to exclude Haridwar from becoming part of the new
state. It also excluded giving rights
over many irrigation and power projects and natural resources. The State Assembly passed another motion on 24
April 1997. The bill for creation of
Uttarakhand was passed in Lok Sabha on 1 Aug 2000 which negated some of the
amendments made by the state assembly, like the which sought exclusion of
Haridwar. The state of Uttarakhand was created
on 9 November 2000.

Though
the Article 3 of Indian Constitution clearly illustrates the procedure of
originating the bill by the Central Government following which ‘views’ of a
State Governments can be sought, the creation of the three states by NDA
government followed different process, though arriving at the desired result.

In
all the three state formations, the original states were quite amicable to the
separation. Though there was opposition
from the ruling party in the state in case of Jharkhand, and there were some
reservations in case of Uttarakhand, the Union Government passed the bills in
the Parliament to make way for creation of these three new states. These were the cases where the state
governments cooperated with the central government in creation of the new
states, sometimes urging the central government to take up separation.

Just
because such an amicable situation was available in creation of these three
states does not mean that every new state creation should expect same
cooperation. It is a good time for us
to understand the difference between a common practice and a legal procedure. Let
me illustrate this with two examples.

Examples on change in standard
operating procedure

There
is a driver in US, Henry, who drives really fast, and is caught by the traffic
police for speeding. Two times in a row,
the cops let him go with a warning. So,
when he is caught the third time, Henry insists that the cop should let him go
with a warning. The cop says, ‘no way, I
am giving you a ticket here’. The driver
then cites the precedents of two other cops before him, demands that this cop
should abide by the general practice already established. Henry demands the cop should let him go with a
warning. In return, the cop explains
that just because two cops before him were nice to give him a leeway and let
him go with a warning does not make it the standard operating procedure. No matter how many instances there might be,
thousands or millions, where cops let go of the speeding driver with a warning,
the standard operating procedure of giving a ticket to a speeding driver does
not change. It is still illegal to speed
– that does not change.

The
message is simple. No matter how many
times the law enforcers give leeway and be nice to accommodate the wishes of
the drivers, the law does not change.
The standard operating procedure does not change because of precedents
of leeway.

Let’s
take a look at second example. In a
country called Mondavia, it is a contempt of court when one doesn’t stand up
when a judge enters the court. However,
a new judge, Mikhail is quite relaxed about this rule, and allows people to sit
through when he enters the court. People
get used to this. One day, Mikhail
retires and a new judge Nicholas enters the court. Nobody stands up. He charges them with contempt of court. The people cite the previous precedents to tell
him that now the law has changed since Mikhail has allowed them sit
through. Nicholas explains that a law
does not change no matter how many times it is deviated to accommodate the
perpetrator or the victim. If that
deviation is asked into question, the original and prescribed legal method has
to be followed. Only a verdict by a
court of law on a legal case can reinterpret a law, but no amount of deviations
on the implementations can reinterpret the law.

Legal Precedents on Article 3

Coming
to creation of new states in India, every legal case in this country has only
upheld the original interpretation of Article 3, while its deviations and
accommodations have never been sanctioned legally as reinterpretations. In two legal cases concerning implementation
of Article 3, the courts in India have emphasized that the Indian Parliament is
the sole authority on demarcation of new states and that the views of State
Government need NOT to be taken up in such decisions.

In
the first case, Babulal Parante contested that the Legislature of Bombay had
not been given an opportunity to express its view on the formation of two new
states, Maharashtra and Gujarat. The High Court dismissed the petition. In this case, Babulal Parante v.
State of Bombay, 1960, the court
explains the provisions of Article 3 [emphasis
mine]:

The
period within which the State Legislature must express its views has to be
specified by the President; but the President may extend the period so
specified. If, however, the period specified or extended expires and no views
of the State Legislature are received, the second condition laid down in the
proviso is fulfilled in spite of the fact that the views of the State
Legislature have not been expressed.

The
intention seems to be to give an opportunity to the State Legislature to
express its views within the time allowed; if the State Legislature fails to
avail itself of that opportunity, such failure does not invalidate the
introduction of the Bill.

Nor is there anything in the proviso to
indicate that Parliament must accept or act upon the views of the State
Legislature.

In
another case, Pradeep Chaudhary questioned
how Haridwar district (and not just the city) was included in Uttarakhand going
against the resolutions and amendments made by State Assembly. The petitioners reasoned that Parliament
could not make amendments to the original bill and that a new draft of the bill
should have been sent to State Assembly before passing in the Parliament. In the case, Pradeep Chaudhary Vs. Union of India, 2009, the court explains
Article 3 as thus [emphasis mine]:

Indisputably, only because one or the other view had been expressed in the State
Legislature, the same would not be binding upon the Parliament even if its
views were received in time. When, however, the views of the State
Legislature were not received in time, the Parliament would be free to pass the
Act in terms of the Bill or with amendment as it may deem fit and proper. A
Bill has to be introduced in the Parliament. It is the Parliament's prerogative to place the Bill in either of the
Houses, either in the same form or with amendments.

What
is interesting is that the above verdict also discusses the issues which are extremely
relevant to the current issue of Telangana.

The term `consultation' means
differently in different context. While a power to introduce the Bill
is kept with the Parliament, consultation with the State Legislature although
is mandatory but its recommendations were not binding on the Parliament. `Consultation' in a case of this nature
would not mean concurrence. It only means to ask or seek for the views of a
person on any given subject. The views of the State Legislature certainly would
be taken into consideration but the same would not mean that the Parliament
would be bound thereby.

One
court ruling made it clear that it is not binding on the Indian Parliament to
wait for the State Assembly to provide its views; and the other made it clear
that the Parliament could override the suggestions made by the State Assembly,
thereby clearly establishing an interpretation that while a resolution from a
State Assembly is desired it is not mandatory.

But
since the creation of these last three states, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand and
Uttarakhand, involved passing of resolution by State Assembly before creation
of the bill, is it now the standard operating procedure?

Can deviations in procedure change the
law?

The
question we have in front of us is that of legality, as to whether a change in
the procedure as a precedent changes the law and its prescribed legal
steps. While a new verdict of a court can
reinterpret the law, no change in the operating procedures by the offices of
the government can change the law. A law
can be legally interpreted only in a court of law, not by the officers in duty
or the government offices. A law can be
changed or introduced only in the Indian Parliament; it cannot be modified or
created by the operating procedures adopted by the government offices. With
these key understandings, we have to take a look at interpretation of Article
3.

In
case of Jharkhand, Chattisgarh and Uttarakhand, the original states approved
creation of new breakaway states. Therefore,
it became easy to pass a resolution in the State Assembly first, though it is
not a prescribed step in implementation of Article 3. The passing of the bill in State Assemblies
made it easier for the Union Government to introduce the bill in Lok Sabha and
Rajya Sabha, but it did not reinterpret Article 3 or modify it. It was a matter of convenience. Such a convenient step could have been ignored
or completely rejected and still the final result could be achieved.

So,
we should take a look at a case when the original state had a dissenting voice,
when they did not agree upon creation of new state. That happened in the case of Maharashtra and
Gujarat out of Bombay State and the creation of Andhra State and Tamil Nadu out
of Madras State. Article 3 was debated
and discussed by the architects of Indian Constitution to get the desired shape
in the present form taking into account the cases where the original state does
not approve of division of the state.
That is what the law is all about.
When signing a legal agreement, the lawyers take into account the cases
where both parties do not agree and consider those situations to define the
various clauses. When both parties
agree, there is no need to refer to the legal agreement. But when the parties do not agree, that’s
when we refer to the clauses in the agreement to find the way out. Even if the both parties do not agree, the
clauses of the agreement will dictate the outcome. That’s exactly the case with Telangana.

Telangana
is a case when the parties do not agree.
Therefore, the standard operating procedure needs to be invoked. The convenient procedure that was adopted in
creation of three states in year 2000
cannot be applied here.

Disputes invoke original interpretation
of law

If
ever P Chidambaram invoked the convenient procedure, giving him the benefit of
doubt that he thought all the groups in Andhra Pradesh were in agreement, he
should have later on realized his folly by December 23, because it was quite
evident by then that there was immense opposition from Seemandhra. The standard operating procedure as described
by the legal system of the country has to be resorted to when a conflict
arises.

Nobody
looks at a will or a legal document if all parties agree to a step and go about
following it. Legal cases arise only in
disputes. Such a dispute arose between
Seemandhras and Telangana. That’s when
the legal documents are referred to. And
the legal document and precedents are quite unequivocal on this. The Home Minister of India should have corrected
his steps to resort to actual and standard operating procedure, which clearly
illustrates that it is the Parliament which is the sole authority on creation
of new states and that a resolution from State Assembly does not stop or stall
the creation of Telangana.

Instead,
the Home Minister continues to refer to the convenient procedure as it if it is
the rule, when it is not, to make a mockery of Indian constitution and its
architects, and the law of the land.
Insisting that State Assembly of Andhra Pradesh should pass the
resolution to start the process of creation of Telangana is tantamount to
rubbishing Article 3 of Indian Constitution.
It is like arguing that police officer should still issue a warning and
not give a ticket for speeding, and that everyone in the courtroom can still
continue to sit while the judge enters the court.

If
the common man of the country misinterprets the law, it is understandable,
though not pardonable. Ignorance of law
is not even condoned by the court. But
when the Home Minister and other cabinet ministers resort to such
misinterpretation, it is sheer insanity, it is downright criminal, it is
miscarriage of justice, which leads to trauma to 40 million people, results in
600 deaths, and spurs a large scale mass movement affecting millions of people.

The
question that is posed to us is: who is going to pay for this subversion of
legal procedures in this country?

47 comments:

1. Target the golden Goose: Hyderabads IT industry, Shutdown Google or Microsoft's operations for One day you will get International Headlines.

2.Make the life for Settlers in Hyd or Telangana So miserable that they will be the ones begging UPA for a speedier SOLUTION.

No amount of Mahagarjans or Million Marches or Mass mobilisations will attract any Attention, Symbolic Actions will Just wont Do, we should stop "Acts" of Protest Instead Our Protests should have Real Consequences .

We have to agree that at this stage the Agitations and JAC's are Infiltrated by persons whose main Motivation is "Self Interest" and are only in it for personal mileage.

Article 3 also does not say that Parliament has to listen to a section of people and create a state. The power to create or not create a state lies clearly with Parliament.

Your views are paradoxical. On one hand you say that parliament should not consider views of state assembly as that is not required as per law , then why should it consider the views of telangana people , Is it written in Article 3 that , when a section of people agitate a state should be created ?

Your people have a choice to get a simple majority in Parliament and get your state as per the constitution.

@tgoption 1 would be detriminal to the intrests of entire Indian IT industry as a whole.and regarding option 2, even if 99% of thew settlers are harrased, it would not make any impact whatsoever on the decision makers because the remaining 1%(the likes of lagadapati, kavuri, jaggu, chandu naidu, etc and their business partners) are the ones who matter the most and they are the ones who are regular "rowdy mamool" payers to kcr.break the "relation" between jac and these people, harm their financial interests and im sure it would be of much use to you.

It is not written in Article 3 that when a section of people agitate a state should be created.

But people are asking for Telangana to be created because all most all the parties whom they have voted for have promised in their manifestos that if they come to power they will create Telangana.

Name less said... haha Sujai ,

-----

Your views are paradoxical. On one hand you say that parliament should not consider views of state assembly as that is not required as per law , then why should it consider the views of telangana people , Is it written in Article 3 that , when a section of people agitate a state should be created ?

@tgWhy not kill all the non telangana people and then dance on their corpses, so that people will be scared of you, then you will get your telangana?

I don't bother myselves whether Andhra pradesh seperates or not (until) i listen to people like you. Dude do you know what are you speaking? make life miserable for others, because you have some mental disorder, i pray to god to put some sense into you and to the meat head who writes all this non sense and instigates people against one another based on regional lines, on some imaginary amnesia.One word: If you speak to others with an open heart and say this is our problem with you, we worked and lived for 50+ years, lets decide on what we can share and separate amicably so no party loses and everybody will be happy.

If you talk nonsense and wan't to disturb others, i think you don't deserve anything. It will be a repeat of 1969 (it will be much higher than that figure).

Though late, it seems to have dawned on you who your true adversary is. Stop blaming SeemAndha (Mr. Jai style) people and beat the drum into the ears of the national leaders. They know very well how to play the game to keep people united and make them hate each other. Two strong states, for them, is obviously much worse for their manipulative tendencies than one weak state.

I strongly suggest you to go to Supreme Court to 'enforce article 3' if u think the ministers are ignoring it based on 'willful misinterpretation'. Judiciary activism might help you :). Alternative is go for secession from Indian union as u do not follow or trust constitutional process and procedures.

Article 3 also does not say that Parliament has to listen to a section of people and create a state. The power to create or not create a state lies clearly with Parliament.

The above article does not argue that Article 3 takes people’s wishes into account.

Your views are paradoxical. On one hand you say that parliament should not consider views of state assembly as that is not required as per law , then why should it consider the views of telangana people , Is it written in Article 3 that , when a section of people agitate a state should be created ?

The day the IQ of a baboon increases to that of a human, the paradox will be removed. Till then you can enjoy the paradox. ;-)

ON good faith let me agree with your interpretation of article 3 that that state is a simply a banchan with no decision making power while the center is the dora. I doubt whether that will be the conclusion of constitutional experts but as I said for the sake of argument lets accept your interpretation is correct.

So this is what you want from the dora - he should rip apart a linguistic state formed by an act of parliament and with unanimous approval of the assemblies of the pre-existing states of Hyderabad and Andhra. And the dora should do it when the majority of the people of state oppose it!!!. You know - some democratic temper you got.

I don’t think that you should agree with my interpretation ON GOOD FAITH. You have been given a power to reason. You should use your own brain and read texts, interpretations and arguments to come to some kind of understanding.

…he should rip apart a linguistic state formed by an act of parliament and with unanimous approval of the assemblies of the pre-existing states of Hyderabad…

Two things to clarify here. First, there was no record of unanimous approval of Hyderabad State Assembly. No resolution was passed which was recorded. Second, there is no reason why a state which was formed by one generation of people cannot be broken by another generation of people based on changed circumstances.

And the dora should do it when the majority of the people of state oppose it!!!

That exactly why Article 3 empowers only the Parliament to reorganize the states. So that even when majority in a State oppose the division, the Parliament can go ahead and divide it. ‘Key to Telangana: Part 1’ details this.

If you don’t understand after reading that, you can spend some time reading material on this topic instead of expecting me to spoon feed you.

Sujai, some people only understand the languagge of "dora" and "banchan".

Statement in normal language: They want states to be eternal & irrevocable irrespective of people's aspirations or constituitional due proces (does not apply to the "great" andhera state "achieved" through the "sacrifice" of some guy in 1953)

Restated in a language our "fiend" can understand bettter: They want generations of Telangana people to forever be the "banchans" of the andha "doras" just because our forefathers borrowed a small amount on "chakravaddi" (or allegedly agreed to merge).

"I don’t think that you should agree with my interpretation ON GOOD FAITH. You have been given a power to reason. You should use your own brain and read texts, interpretations and arguments to come to some kind of understandin"

Thanks for the lecture. But If you used "power to reason" yourself perhaps you would have realized that the thrust of my post was on the democratic basis of the action you seem to desire here. Legal intrepretation of the article is irrelevant to my post.

Sujai" First, there was no record of unanimous approval of Hyderabad State Assembly. No resolution was passed which was recorded."

So you admit a possibility that a resolution could have been made but not recorded(which does appear to be true). Thats an amazingly honest statement from a T separatist (atleast the ones I have encountered). A hat tip sir.

Sujai"Second, there is no reason why a state which was formed by one generation of people cannot be broken by another generation of people based on changed circumstances"

So "changed circumstances" are the basis ? The problem is there do not appear to be such a change of circumstances which would pass the moral, ethical, democratic test to warrant the breaking up of the state.

Those who espouse breaking up of a state of 8 crore do have a responsibility to lay out their case on the basis of universally acknowledged morals and ethics. Trumped reasons, identity politics ..or a simple "i want it therfore you should give it" dont count in my book.

No. Every resolution is recorded. If it is not recorded then that mean no resolution took place.Sujai,

just a point of academic interest.Agreed that no resolution was passed because there was no record for the same.Then on which basis GOI disintegrated Hyderabad state into 3 parts? Was it done with approval of people or elected members?1956 SRC bill must be having reference to the process under which Hyderabad state was disintegrated.

No. Every resolution is recorded. If it is not recorded then that mean no resolution took place.

My question is a bit silly. Yet with some logic. Supposing Hyderabad assembly recorded all the resolutions in its 8 years (or only 4 years) tenure. Where are records of assembly proceedings and resolutions? I tried a lot for them on internet. Found not a single reference to any. Even in case of Andhra state (which was there for about 3 years) and AP there were not many records in public.OK my logic is:The party claiming there was resolution has burden of showing recorded evidence.On the other hand you can say something is not there if rest of the records are available. Conversely you cannot say something did not exist as might be missing with all others of its kind.

You can argue that there is no recorded evidence of resolution. You cannot say there is no resolution because all others are recorded.

"The wishes of the people, to the extent they are objectively ascertainable anddo not come into conflict with larger national interests". In other words, "I want it because we (i.e. the people) want it" is not only a valid ground but the most important one.

The specially convened assembly session did not (repeat not) vote on the resolution but adjourned without taking a vote. This is clearly recorded in KVN Rao, the only source the votaries of unity could dig up. When cornered, they played with semantics because Rao shows numbers "supporting" AP formation.

HK & Marathwada mergers were based on public opinion as ascertained by the SRC.

Then on which basis GOI disintegrated Hyderabad state into 3 parts? Was it done with approval of people or elected members?

Article 3 of Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to reorganize states with or without the consent of State Assembly. A bill is created which is then forwarded to State Assembly only for opinion. A resolution doesn’t have to be passed in the State Assembly in support or in rejection. It is not binding on the Parliament to consider the views of State Assembly while reorganizing the states.

States Reorganization Bill of 1956 created Andhra Pradesh out of Telangana and Andhra State while the Marathwada districts were added to Bombay State and Karnatak districts were added to newly formed Karnataka.

No resolution took place in Hyderabad State Assembly on this bill. From a legal point of view, no approval was sought from the elected members of Hyderabad State Assembly.

My question is a bit silly. Yet with some logic. Supposing Hyderabad assembly recorded all the resolutions in its 8 years (or only 4 years) tenure. Where are records of assembly proceedings and resolutions?

I am not sure if they are available on the internet. They are available in the Library of Andhra Pradesh State Assembly in Hyderabad.

I tried a lot for them on internet. Found not a single reference to any. Even in case of Andhra state (which was there for about 3 years) and AP there were not many records in public.

We do not know about Andhra State. We do not know where the records are kept.

You can argue that there is no recorded evidence of resolution. You cannot say there is no resolution because all others are recorded.

There are many Telangana activists who take themselves very seriously. There are many lawyers, authors, public administration officers, erstwhile members of parliament and assembly, who are currently fighting for Telangana. They exchange information and when an issue arises we look for records from real sources. From the knowledge bank that we have, which is quite huge and comprehensive, it is clear that no resolution took place in Hyderabad State Assembly. The onus of proving otherwise rests on the opposition. At any time if new evidence is available which suggests otherwise, we will readily change our stance.

A bill is created which is then forwarded to State Assembly only for opinion.

Where is it (the bill and the request for the opinion) in the case of the disintegration of Hyderabad. Ask the legal experts and the knowledge bank that you have and I will be surprised if you find one such. We searched for it but failed.

If not, was it not unconstitutional on the part of the Union Govt to have broken the Hyderabad state. In such a case should we not ask for reinstating the true "Panchaveni Sangamam".

Sujai,your reply is more of educating constitution.The question here isWas disintegration of Hyderabad state approved, the least discussed by Hyderabad assembly or not?

You can answer with same authority with which you said there was no resolution on merger.

Reg. no resolutionI have already accepted that onus is on other side. (In fact I admit they failed to produce valid proof). My question was more logical. You are 'asserting' against something based on absence of it. Nothing wrong about. But this will bring onus on you for allegations you make. Time and again many asked the number of jobs looted by SA. Most of T activists (you are already convinced on reliability of their research) refer Girglani commission report. But that report DID NOT LIST VIOLATIONS region-wise but it was only zone-wise.Instead of showing concrete proof from this report, T activists quote numbers varying from 50K to 2.5lakh.The state library must be having report of Girglani report too. Why not you publish the extracts of the same INDICTING SA people looting TG jobs?Now where is the onus of proof? Should other side come and see copies you are reading at TRS HQ?

Was disintegration of Hyderabad state approved, the least discussed by Hyderabad assembly or not?

First, the ‘approval’ of the state is not required for state reorganization. Yes, the topic was discussed in the Hyderabad Assembly but no resolution or voting took place.

Lot of things happened during a short period of time and lot of people were quite surprised at how fast the events unfolded. These observations can be obtained by many number of books written by those people who were privy to the events of those times.

On Girglani, I have not discussed it much on my blog because I don’t profess to be an expert on that subject. I have not used the statistics from the Girglani commission to build a case for Telangana. The numbers vary from person to person and expert to expert. You can reach out to the right forum on this topic.

Article 3 of Indian Constitution empowers Parliament to reorganize states with or without the consent of State Assembly.

Agreed.What if present GOI decides to make Hyderabad, to your dislike based on SKC report, as separate state under same article?

Why T activists are questioning this demand by likes of Sera?

I am confused among many of your articles. What should be the basis for creation of states?Emotional aspects? Inequality among regions? Peoples aspirations? GOI wish using Article 3? National interest?

You do not like ifs and buts. Yet,What if powerful North Indian lobby uses Article 3 to divide Telangana into 5 states? What if new states are created from the regions with rich natural resources, say Bellari under Article 3?From your description Article 3 appears like VETO. Any VETO can be misused.

The States Reorganisation Act, 1956http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1211891/

Thanks Sujai. This I am aware. Anyway thanks for your effort.

I was asking for the motion where it was passed to the state (or any of the states mentioned in the 1956 act) for an OPINION (not resolution). Is there such? To my knowledge none. Hence isn't it unconstitutional?

Even otherwise like you argue. . .

So there is no need of resolution etc etc etc. And if Telanganas have to be blamed they need to blame the Union Govt and the 1956 state reorganization act which was taken unilaterally without the consent of Telanganas (which according to you is anyway NOT needed).

Then why all these venom spewing against Andhras and others and this "traitor/drohi" language. Fight with the Union Govt. Why this jhago bhago and disruption of peace.

By the same 1956 act, new (or present) Kerala was formed, new (or present)Karnataka, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab etc were formed. By that logic do we need to revisit all of them. And what stops this state division becoming an example for them too.

Anyway the fact is that the Union Govt made it as it sought fit. Then why all this acrimony against your own telugu brothers?

And anyway there were over 600 princely states that merged with the nation and hence the 1956 act acted as a glue to put the nation together. One slip there and we could again become a nation of 600 states. Nothing wrong in having 600 states actually - Hyderabad city can be one of them :)

Yes, the topic was discussed in the Hyderabad Assembly but no resolution or voting took place.

Good. T activists who did so much research can publish proceedings of the same, right? Almost every T website published BRK's letter, xerox copies of SA leaders' statements before merger etc etc

Again it is same as Nehru's statement on 'divorce'. Not a single official or news paper clipping was produced in support this statement.

I know you did not discuss Girglani but you have not excluded Job looting as one of the exploitation. In one of blogs you gave your estimate as 1 Lakh (I can show you the same, if you allow me full search on your blog).

You T activists under 'victim hood' took at away the privilege of demanding 'stands' and 'proofs'.I would like to ask you. What is your stand on job looting? How many jobs were looted? What is the proof for it?

First, the ‘approval’ of the state is not required for state reorganization. Yes, the topic was discussed in the Hyderabad Assembly but no resolution or voting took place.

Sujai is right. Yes "approval" is not required.

But the second part is lies. No such opinion was asked by the parliament. If a discussion took place (which is doubtful) it was on the initiative of the respective assembly.

But the bill (1956 stare reorganization act) was not put in any of the 14 states or 4 union territories mentioned in it. None of their opinions were "sought" which is the procedure. Hence unconstitutional.

The disintegration of Hyderabad state in that sense in unconstitutional.

If anyone has other info which I will be glad to follow and read I will stand corrected. But the procedure we keep speaking now was not followed in 1956.

These observations can be obtained by many number of books written by those people who were privy to the events of those times. Then I suggest you to read a book by Sri Madapati Hanumantha Rao. Who as midst of the happenings. He dismissed opposition to merger as 'verpaatuvaadam' by a handful of people.You can find this book in any library. 'Andhrua Charitra samskruthi'.

I was asking for the motion where it was passed to the state (or any of the states mentioned in the 1956 act) for an OPINION (not resolution). Is there such? To my knowledge none. Hence isn't it unconstitutional?

The bill was available for the State of Hyderabad to discuss. If State Assembly has not convened during the time, it is not mandatory for the Parliament to wait till the State Assembly convenes to discuss the bill. This was made clear in the case of Babulal Parante v. State of Bombay, 1960. The judgment says:

if the State Legislature fails to avail itself of that opportunity, such failure does not invalidate the introduction of the Bill.

Theoretically the time given to the state to provide views can be as short as one day by which the Parliament doesn’t give any practical opportunity for State Assembly to discuss the matter.

And if Telanganas have to be blamed they need to blame the Union Govt and the 1956 state reorganization act which was taken unilaterally without the consent of Telanganas (which according to you is anyway NOT needed).

Which we do, but that story doesn’t end there, right?

Then why all these venom spewing against Andhras and others and this "traitor/drohi" language. Fight with the Union Govt. Why this jhago bhago and disruption of peace.

Though we were reluctant to join Andhra Pradesh, the safeguards were accepted by some of the Telangana leaders. When these safeguards were flouted by Andhras, naturally the ire is against Andhras. Look, I am in no mood to teach you the history here. This question actually makes me wonder if you even know some of the basics – you seem to know nothing about the region or its history – you just come here to pass your time.

If you are keen on knowing about the issue you can read articles on this website or take up the new book which is out in the book stores – ‘Battleground Telangana’ by Kingshuk Nag.

By the same 1956 act, new (or present) Kerala was formed, new (or present)Karnataka, Bombay, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab etc were formed. By that logic do we need to revisit all of them.

Again, you need to read about Article 3, go through the history of formation of new states in India. The need for a new state arises when people of that land clamor for it. When no such clamor arises, there is no need to revisit them.

And what stops this state division becoming an example for them too.

Creation of states or stopping of creation of states was never meant to be an example for others. Each deserves its own merit. I am not sure if you understand some of the basics of Indian Constitution. The reason I say that is- try discussing Theory of Relativity with someone who is in the Third Grade. He will ask such basic questions that it does not make sense anymore to teach him further. You have to wait till he grows up learn Newtonian Physics before Theory of Relativity can be broached. I am wondering if I am wasting my time writing responses to your childish questions.

Anyway the fact is that the Union Govt made it as it sought fit. Then why all this acrimony against your own telugu brothers?

Because those Telugu brothers marginalized, suppressed and discriminated us in our own region. See, this is what I am saying. I wrote 84 articles on this topic detailing this but you ask some fundamental and basic questions. Now, I am wondering if you have reached even the Third Grade.

This does not mean that the centre asked the state its opinion. What does "available" mean. There is a procedure.

Forget third grade. It looks like you did not cross even the diaper stage. ANd to educate people like you we take the effort so that you don't start writing a critique on why Theory Of Relativity is impossible or that the earth is flat which many of your ill-educated brothers are doing sadly doing on the internet.

What if powerful North Indian lobby uses Article 3 to divide Telangana into 5 states?

Theoretically, they could do so. Nothing in Indian Constitution prohibits ‘powerful North Indian lobby’ coming together to divide Telangana into 5 states.

The architects of Indian Constitution believed that the majority in the Indian Parliament will serve the interests of India and its preservation. Breaking Telangana into such 5 parts may caution other state leaders to be careful lest the same method be applied to them in future. But nothing will stop if they decide to discriminate South as an agenda. Such focussed discrimination against South may lead to breakup of the Indian Union.

If the majority in the Indian Parliament works against the interests of the people of a certain region, then there is nothing the Indian Constitution can do to stop it. It works on the basic premise that people of the land will work towards preservation of India, upholding its principles, directives, freedoms, following the democratic and constitutional norms. Some corrections can be made through courts and legal procedures, but few others are even beyond the purview of the legal system.

If you indeed file a case. It will result in either of the two:1. Article 3 was strictly followed. Your case is dismissed like the other two cases before which challenged Article 3. 2. Article 3 was not followed - which only bolsters the case for Telanganas.

Prove Andhras were dominated by Tamils. What is the proof? So why did you make the demand for Andhra State then?

I do not get you. What Tamils have to do with TG movement.You confuse again. Would you like Andhra kind of settlement? In your own words they were THROWN out of Madras w/o capital.Some SAs definitely would like to retain Hyderabad.

article 3, in my opinion is VERY VERY DANGEROUS from the states point of view.according to it, central govt at its whims and fancies can, not just bi/trifurcate but also change the boundaries of a state.tommorow, congress govt, under pressure from its ally dmk accede parts of nellore and chittoor districts into tamil nadu.to buy peace with jaggu and galiu janardhan reddy, it may make bellary district of karnataka part of a.p.

Dear Commenters:Please identify yourself. At least use a pseudonym. Otherwise there will be too many *Anonymous*; making it confusing.

Do NOT write personal information or whereabouts about the author or other commenters. You are free to write about yourself. Please do not use abusive language. Do not indulge in personal attacks and insults.

Write comments which are relevant and make sense so that the debate remains healthy.